###
气象:2015,41(9):1058-1067
本文二维码信息
码上扫一扫!
基于TIGGE资料的西太平洋热带气旋多模式集成预报方法比较
(1.中国气象局北京城市气象研究所,北京 100089;2.南京信息工程大学 大气科学学院, 南京 210044;3.气象灾害教育部重点实验室(南京信息工程大学), 南京 210044;4.浙江省气象服务中心,杭州 050081;5.中国气象局数值预报中心,北京 100081;6.解放军理工大学气象海洋学院,南京 050081;7.中国卫星海上测控部,江阴 214431)
Comparison of Multimodel Ensemble Methods for Western Pacific Tropical Cyclone Forecast Based on TIGGE Data
(1.Institute of Urban Meteorology, CMA, Beijing 100089;2.College of Atmospheric Science, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing 210044;3.Key Laboratory of Meteorological Disaster (NUIST), Ministry of Education, Nanjing 210044;4.Center of Meteorological Service of Zhejiang, Hangzhou 310017;5.Numerical Weather Prediction Centre of CMA, Beijing 100081;6.Institute of Meteorology and Oceanography, PLA University of Science and Technology, Nanjing 211101;7.China Satellite Maritime Tracking and Control Department, Jiangyin 310017)
摘要
图/表
参考文献
相似文献
本文已被:浏览 1064次   下载 2059
投稿时间:2014-06-10    修订日期:2015-06-25
中文摘要: 基于TIGGE资料中CMA、ECMWF、JMA和NCEP四中心2010、2011和2012年3年的资料,采用集合平均(EMN)、加权集合平均(WEMN)、消除偏差集合平均(BREM)和加权消除偏差集合平均(即超级集合,SUP)四种方法,对西太平洋地区热带气旋路径与中心气压进行时效为24、48、72、96和120 h的多模式集成预报,评估了不同单中心预报结果,并分析了不同多模式集成预报方法的特点,对比了不同多模式集成方法的效果。结果表明,对于热带气旋路径和中心气压预报,各中心预报技巧不同,其中3年的CMA预报效果均较差,2010、2011年的ECMWF预报和2012年的NCEP预报效果最优;总体上几种多模式集成方法在120 h预报时效内均优于单模式预报,其中EMN作为一种最简单的集成预报方法,具有一定的局限性,而WEMN由于给不同单模式预报赋予了权重,因此相对于EMN能够得到更好的多模式集成预报结果;BREM方案由于消除了模式预报中的系统性偏差,因此集成预报效果也优于EMN;由于去除了模式预报偏差,同时给不同模式赋予了权重,SUP方案得到的集成预报效果最优。
Abstract:In this paper, four multimodel ensemble methods, namely ensemble mean (EMN), weighted ensemble mean (WEMN), bias removed ensemble mean (BREM) and weighted bias removed ensemble mean (superensemble, SUP) have been constructed based on TIGGE datasets, from which four single model forecasts of recent three years from CMA, ECMWF, JMA and NCEP are selected to conduct multimodel ensemble combination and comparison. Single and multimodel ensemble forecasts on the tracks and central pressure of tropical cyclone over Western Pacific with forecast lead time 24 h, 48 h, 72 h, 96 h and 120 h are evaluated and compared. The results show that different single models have different forecast skills. The CMA forecast has the worst performance during the three years, and the best single model forecast in 2010 and 2011 is ECMWF while NCEP is the best one in 2012. Generally, multimodels have significant superiority over the single models within 120 h forecast lead times. As the simplest method within all the four multimodels, EMN shows limited superiority. WEMN has better skill than EMN because it can give different weights to the member models, while the BREM exhibits superiority for the systematic bias is removed. Because of considering both the weights of member models and bias elimination, the SUP has a better skill in general.
文章编号:     中图分类号:    文献标志码:
基金项目:国家重点基础研究发展计划(973计划)(2012CB955200)、公益性行业(气象)科研专项(GYHY200906009)和江苏高校优势学科建设工程资助项目(PADA)共同资助
引用文本:
张涵斌,智协飞,王亚男,陈静,张雷,李靖,2015.基于TIGGE资料的西太平洋热带气旋多模式集成预报方法比较[J].气象,41(9):1058-1067.
ZHANG Hanbin,ZHI Xiefei,WANG Yanan,CHEN Jing,ZHANG Lei,LI Jing,2015.Comparison of Multimodel Ensemble Methods for Western Pacific Tropical Cyclone Forecast Based on TIGGE Data[J].Meteor Mon,41(9):1058-1067.